Skip to main content

About your Search

20120501
20120531
SHOW
Book TV 29
( more )
STATION
CNNW 182
CNN 174
FOXNEWSW 134
FOXNEWS 123
CSPAN2 106
CSPAN3 102
CSPAN 100
MSNBCW 93
CNBC 92
MSNBC 85
WHUT (Howard University Television) 74
KQED (PBS) 68
WETA 54
WUSA (CBS) 51
KPIX (CBS) 47
KRCB (PBS) 46
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 1898
TOPIC
china 1900
obama 1211
washington 1124
new york 937
romney 868
europe 690
florida 616
clinton 499
beijing 492
chicago 477
chen 403
syria 402
iran 393
pakistan 392
( more )
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 1,900 (some duplicates have been removed)
in relations between russia and the united states there, have been many successes, including the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, cooperation on afghanistan, iran, and north korea. civilian nuclear power, and other areas. but there have been notable differences over syria, missile defense, human rights, enforcement of intellectual property rights and con dufkt elections last month. both president put spin and president obama have called for a deepening of economic cooperation between the two countries. the russian state duma its expected to ratify russia's succession to the wto in june or july. we expect 30 days after that, roughly, that russia will become a member of the world trade organization. for the united states, to take advantage of the new market openings in the russian market, congress must pass legislation to grant russia permanent normal trade relations treatment. the panel today will focus on prospects for improving relations with russia, and how the wto process has prompted russia to take measures to open its economy, to more international trade and investment. we had timed this pa
. and the cold war is not done yet. it's not just the fall of china. it's not just the united states cozying up to japan. but it's going to explode the cold war is going to heat up if you will, in korea. now, remember the last lecture, world war ii? we talked about korea being occupied by japan. once the war is over, the united states and the soviet union decide to divide korea with the united states being in control of the southern part of korea, the soviet union is going to be administering the northern part of korea. eventually, both u.s. and ussr agree that we will withdraw and allow the koreans to have some degree of self-determination. we're going to pull out, soviet union's going to pull out. the koreans will be able to determine their future and their fate. and we both did. the difference is, when we pulled out, we basically took everything with us. when the soviet union pulled out, they left behind a stockpile of weapons. the most modern military technology that they had at the time, and that's the temptation that was going to be used the following summer, 1950, north korea with the us
's not just the united states cozying up to japan. it's going to explode the cold war and it will heat up in korea. now remember the last lecture of world war ii. we talked about korea being occupied by japan. once the war is over, the united states and the soviet union decide to divide korea with the united states being in control of the southern part of korea and the sev yet union is going to be administering the northern part of korea. eventually both u.s. and uss r agree we will withdraw and allow them to have a degree of self determination. we are going pull out and the soviet union will and the koreans will be able to determine their future and fate. we both did. the difference is when we pulled out, we took everything with us. when the soviet union pulled out, they left a stockpile of weapons. the most mot earn technology they had at the time. that's a temptation that was going to be used. the following summer with the use of soviet military armaments, they will innovate and try to take possession of the country. this is what they had warned us about. they are going to expand into
spies in the united states. they passed information along that we were working on it and close to it. he knew we were very close to having a successful nuclear weapon. well, what truman is going to do then is to give the japanese an opportunity to surrender when they don't. we talked about this and dropped two. first on hiroshima august sixth when there was no surrender. we dropped the second on august 9th and eventual low the japanese surrendered. i mentioned to you, the primary reason why truman dropped it was to save american lives. the estimates of americans, what was the casualty if we were going to invade as high as a million american casualties. exactly. that was the primary reason. today i will give you a secondary reason. it's possible that he decided to drop the bomb not just to save lives, but to signal a shift and to send stalin a completely different message about the role of the u.s. and the relationship with the soviet union. we are going drop the bomb to send you a signal that there is a new sheriff in town. roosevelt is dead and cooperation is dead. harry truman will hav
, it david miliband, a former u.k. ambassador to the united states, and my former british colleague at nato. we have widespread support for this report. we are very grateful for their intellectual import and personal support, so that is what i wanted to say. at the order is for us to have a brief conversation, and then we will be happy to take whatever questions you have. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for that. first of all, it is important to state that the atlantic council as a council does not take a point of view on anything, because it would just be too hard to get all of the members to agree, but i do think one thing we all agree on is a strong alliance and an enduring alliance, and this report points us in that direction. let me ask probably just two questions, and i will go to the audience right away, and two of the more controversial points, clearly, what you're saying on germany is tough, and it is saying it to a germany where many germans would argue, are we not doing the most important thing we could possibly do for the future of europe right now, which is aiding
ended in 2009 but most did not feel it but people in all three states feel the united states should get out of afghanistan by a 2-1 margin. but most approve of the job that obama is doing there. a gender gap is on display. it is too close to call in florida where the president is down but it is 13 points in ohio. and he has a 17-point edge among women in pennsylvania. >>reporter: thank you on the perfect strange day in washington, dc. another former aide to john edwards on the witness stand today. he said he overher the foam presidential candidate asking his mistress whether her baby bump was showing. the foam aide here in the blue tie and glasses said in 26 fix he saw the mistress get off the elevator on the same floor as john edwards and the foam aide says the mistress told him she and john edwards were madly if love. and the next day the aide says john edwards called him to deny he was having an affair and told him rielle hunter was crazy. not long after that run in the aide said campaign staffers had to stay in a different hotel floor from the presidential candidate, but one day in
a change. missouri's own harry truman now becomes president of the united states. very interesting circumstances, obviously. we are just about to wrap up the war in europe. we are i land hopping our way into japan. i mean, it looks promising and yet, there are all kinds of pot holes along the way. we still have to finish the defeat of germany. we still have to finish off japan. how we do that, when we do that, and what are the consequences of what we're doing, that's the rest of the story. truman is going to meet with stalin and churchill in potsdam, germany, after hitler is defeated. i mean, it's a new big three now with harry truman being the president now instead of roosevelt. truman's attitude is going to be very different from that of roosevelt. and some indication of that change of u.s. policy comes right away. remember i mentioned to you that even vice president harry truman had not been kept informed of the manhattan project. one of them is, there's a few things you need to know. we've been working on a bomb. it's the biggest, baddest bomb around. here in potsdam, truman ge
for the united states and europe. i might add is also a great pleasure to see the french ambassador here this afternoon. thank you for the support that you gave 2 brookings, and that your predecessors gave to fiona hill, was -- and she would be addressing you from this lectern at the date of this conference, but she was locked into a commitment in beijing. but i want to assure you on behalf of brookings and the united states and europe that this does not represent a strategic pivot on the part of the institution or the center to east asia. it has been our pleasure, and i hope of some contribution to the policy community in partnership with the heinrich boll's foundation to bring the conference to you on an annual basis. and i think it is particularly appropriate that we should have filled with us today. -- phil with us today. he is secretary of state of european affairs and is responsible for u.s. policy toward about 50 countries, as well as three key -- and i would add to that currently, someone challenged international institutions -- the north of montreal organization, the european u
of evaluative and educational process that does justice to this committee and justice to the united states senate ratification process, i announce today that i do not currently intend to bring the treaty to a vote before the november elections. we will have extensive hearings. we will do our due diligence. we'll prepare for a vote, but unless somehow the dynamic were to shift or change, we will wait until the passions of the election have subsided before we vote. my hope and expectation is that everyone will exhaust all avenues of inquiry and carefully consider the arguments on both sides. the contentious political season will now give us a chance to do what this committee has historically done best, which is not to politicize but to spend serious thoughtful time deliberating and debating all of the questions of substance. i'm pleased to see that the internet is already beginning to buzz with some discussion of this. but i will say up front there's a lot of misinformation and there's a certain amount of mythology, so i look forward to the process of clearing up the misinformation and the m
of international waters. 162 countries and the european community have ratified the treaty but the united states is not to read to the secretary of state hillary clinton and defense secretary leon panetta urged the senate to approve the treaty setting national security, job creation and oil exploration. they testified at the senate foreign relations committee. it's just under three hours. >> the hearing will come to order. thank you all very much for being with us today. secretary clinton, secretary panetta and general dempsey, welcome, we are privileged to have you here today. we thank you for joining us. it's a rare occasion in any committee but in this committee when we have simultaneously a panel of witnesses that brings together americans top diplomat, our country's top descends official and our nation's top military officer. your presence here altogether powerfully underscores the importance that you put on this issue. our committee shares the sense of importance which is why i hope without respect to party or ideology we begin an open, honest and comprehensive discussion about whether the
in history the united states needs latin america more than latin america needs the united states? now comcast your mind back -- cast your mind back to a decade ago, that question would seem absurd. the united states was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, the most powerful country economically, politically, militarily. why on earth would he need anyone, let alone a continent known for its economic crises, its political instability for having almost no global clout? well, how times have changed. and how used we have become to the fact of change. there's an old jewish joke i heard probably about 5000 times when i was growing up, and it's set in eastern europe in the 19 century in a period when borders were changing very rapidly. and the story goes that a woman is taking up washington in a remote area and the soldier rides up and he declares old woman, from this day forth, this man -- this land is no longer politically his imperial russian. she watches him go. thank god, i couldn't stand another polish winter. [laughter] thank you for laughing. i will pass those laughs on to my fat
. missouri's own harry truman now becomes president of the united states. very interesting circumstances. obviously. we are just about to wrap up the war in europe. we are island hopping our way to japan. i mean, it looks promising and yet there are all kinds of potholes along the way. we still have to finish the defeat of germany. we still have to finish off japan. how we do that, when we do that, and then what are the consequences of what we're doing, that's the rest of this story. true man truman is going to mee with stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeatedh stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.truman stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.truman stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.truman stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.ruman i stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.pgermany after hitler's defeated.pogerma defeated.tsgermany after hitler defeated.dgermany after hitler' defeated.agermany after hitler' defeated.mgermany after hitler' defeated.potsdam germany after hitler's def
, and comprehensive discussion about whether the united states of america should join the law of the sea convention. i want to underscore the word comprehensive. i've heard from countless military and business leaders for some period of time who believe it is urgent that we ratify this treaty. and i've also spoken with senators and some groups who oppose the treaty. i intend to make certain that the committee does its job properly and thoroughly. we will hear from all sides and we will ask all the questions as we begin the process of educational hearings on this issue. the first since 2007. the senate has seen a fair number of new members elected since then from both sides of the aisle. and our committee also has new members. so i think a thorough examination of the treaty is especially timely and relevant. some of us have had the opportunity in the past to the evaluate this treaty and even to vote on it in this committee. i am personally deeply supportive of it, and i believe it is now more urgent than ever that we ratify it because to remain outside of it is fundamentally directly counter to the bes
. historically each time that the united states has entered into almost any kind of treaty we have been very acidious in doing everything we could to follow that treaty. we have not always been afforded the reciprocal courtesy. i suggest that a new start is a good example of what happens when we don't negotiate in a way that is only in the best interest of the united states. we in the first phase of new start reduced our strategic war head counts significantly without really impacting the russians a great deal when the tactical war heads were left completely out of the equation and part of that promise was that we would modernize our nuclear weapons capability. and it just seems like over time things degrade. and to give a president as flexible as this one the ability to enter into treaties without congressional approval on something as critical as our space assets and our space access is, i think, a foolish ernd on our part and i hope we suggest that. >> gentleman from california, five minutes. >> some time ago mr. andrews suggested that we try to avoid presidential politics as we continue
the united states and europe remain each other's best parkhurst and that when the american president or european leader looks how the public and says pudu one call when there's a problem of the person on the other side of the cleantech. my judgment is that is not going to change anytime soon partly because of the affinity of interest of the values and also there aren't other options and even though there are emerging countries out your waist count on our european allies and to rely on our european allies more than we can count on a cost-cutting. at the same time i think it's clear that we are at the cusp of a major historic transition in the global landscape in which the world that nato represents his losing the primacy it enjoyed the last 200 years and if you look at the share of global product represented by nato and i would include japan because they are a part of the western world since world war ii we've gone from roughly 70% of the global product to 50% and we are headed towards 40% and that says to me the big security question of the day are about how we are going to manage th
trade of the united states. and less than 2 point something of russian foreign trade. which suggests in turn that neither united states nor russia are to each other an important economic partner. just for example with our neighbor in ukraine our trade is 20% higher. with eu it is -- it is almost ten times hyper. -- ten times higher. so what it means, it means we are missing a good economic underpinning for political relations. and that leaves them still vulnerable to the politics of the day, to the crisises of the day, and, and unnecessarily so. we certainly have a lot of things that we have in common in terms of challenges that we face. and i, once drew a list of things that unite us. it appears much longer. we don't see eye to eye. and i would submit important for russia and hopefully for the united states. we have progress aid lot through the last three years. reset has brought a lot of new things, a lot of new way of doing things. the commission that was established by the two presidents seems to be producing new ideas, new avenues for, for cooperation, both between the
arrest and got to the united states embassy, and he asked for release and guarantee of safe treatment but chen guangcheng said china threatened his family if he did not leave the embassy and the united states urged him to make a decision quickly and no he fears for his family's safety and want as asylum in america. he may get his wish with a visa to study not united states, what does this tell us about modern china and about obama's china policy? dramatic escape. he climbed over walls to escape house arrest, injured himself, is driven by heroic colleagues in the human rights community, 300 miles to beijing and stays in safe houses before they say he has to go to the embassy for safety. what does this episode toll us about china? >> during the cold war getting into the embassy gate would have been the happy ending but, now, it does not work out that way. what it tells us about china is contrary to the school of thought here is a country that is increasingly confident that it will be the second great power of the 21st century they are terrified of blind legal activistses living under ho
in this field. september 11th hijackers used united states and foreign financial institutions to hold, move, and retrieve their money. they deposited money into united states accounts via wire transfers and depp sits of traveler's checks and cash that was brought from overseas. they kept funds in foreign accounts which they accessed through atmst and credit card transactions in the home land. according to the september 11th commission, the plot cost al qaeda somewhere in the range of $400,000 to $500,000, of which approximately $300,000 passed through the hijackers' bank casualties here in the united states. after the attacks, the united states publicly declared that the fight against al qaeda financing was as critical as the fight against al qaeda itself. the charge of the united states intelligence and law enforcement communities was clear -- if we choke off the terrorists' money, we limit their ability to conduct mass casualty attacks. within months of the attacks, the department of defense, the fbi, the cia, and perhaps most importantly the department of treasury launched a swift and un
in russia. whether united states gives us pn it tr or not, it is not something that we want to continue for several republics. first, we want americans to be our good partners. secondly, politically, it is one of the vestiges of the cold war mentality still with us and spoils political environment for the reasons which one cannot even explain today because the reasons why jackson/vanek appeared in the first place, how it was wrong even at that time, are no longer. so what is left as a vestige of the cold war still with us and reflections of a wider problem in our relations, and the cold war mentality that sometimes still persists as one of my american colleagues said to me we have victims of the post cold war hangover, which is right. very frequently we judge each other through this that had been developed and not through the commonality of purpose that we have today. it is extremely important. we want to work with the americans. we want to do business with the americans. we want you to be present in the russian market. we stand to benefit from partnership with american companies like o
front of the u.s. capitol, this is half an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of united states. >> detail, colors. present arms. [silence] >> detail, color guard, right shoulder, order. arm. >> please stand for the assessment of the colors like united states capitol police, and remain standing for our national anthem. [silence] >> detail, color guar guard. present arms. >> we will now have the national anthem by kathy williams. ♪ oh, say, can you see ♪ by the dawn's early light ♪ what so proudly we hailed ♪ at the twilight's last gleaming? ♪ ♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars ♪ ♪ thro' the perilous fight ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched ♪ were so gallantly streaming t ♪ and the rockets red glare ♪ the bombs bursting in air ♪ gave proof through the night ♪ that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave ♪ ♪ o'er the land of the free ♪ and the home of the brave? >> detail, color guard. order, right shoulder, arms. >> please remain standing for the invocation. >> please join me in prayer. our gracious fathe
have china china assets from the border with north korea. the last thing the united states or china wants is some sort of confrontation that would somehow cause them to butt heads as they did in 1953, so i think any time there is a serious thought given to some sort of military action this is constantly at the top, not even the top even halfway up the escalation ladder this is constantly the concern that i think every u.s. president has had to think about seriously, so that is certainly one of the reasons, the china factor, and the other is that we, the united states went into iraq or afghanistan because it became the top foreign policy issue on which the head ministrations of a resolution. now, we can debate whether there was the right or wrong finger. many americans think it was the wrong thing. many americans think nothing was resolved and, you know, that's a completely different question. i think the plant for korea is i don't really think that the north korea issue has risen to that level of priority. it's been a crisis the you want to solve at least in the sense of preventing
interest in the united states and he said his message in washington was the united states is one budget deal away from being restored on the world stage. and i think -- and he was also saying that some countries in east asia were saying, look, don't spend your time with the united states. we're going to be the next power you know, so pay attention to us. and it's a challenge for the united states on how to deal with that. so frankly, you know, my feeling is that whether it's a question of the united states' ability to be a strong economy, to be innovative, to support foreign affairs budget, whether it's security issues, it has to start at home and i think that's a key issue of trying to restore the fundamentals of u.s. growth which include dealing with the spending and debt and deficit policies. not relying solely on monetary policy as we've largely been doing because if you rely on monetary policy for a long time, you plant the seeds of other problems. i don't only mean the fiscal issues. it's also what i find interesting now and what i experience with the world bank is that because i
of real significance to the united states. to do that, we will dedicate 80% of our effort to four major cases. right now they are syria, kenya, north/central america and burma. then we'll have another eight to ten places where we can test new approaches or make a welcome difference by just sending the the right person at the right time. so far i think we're gaining traction in each of our major priority engagements. many of you are working in these places, and we realize that we won't know it all or know best about them, so we hope for your support. in syria we are providing a nontraditional surge to empower and unite a fractured, nonviolent opposition. as the secretary announced, that includes providing nonlethal assistance. we are also working with partners to set up an outpost for the internal opposition to coordinate and communicate with the international community. in kenya we are helping to develop plans to insure peaceful and credible elections a year before the vote. incidentally, kenya is one place where we've seen a potential model for broad cooperation and innovation. in nort
a very solid marker that this case, the chen case, was important to the united states. understand a couple of things. this is a broad important relationship between the united states and china, it's always going to be difficult and complex on a good day. then you throw something like this into the mix and it can have the potential for tensions although, up until today, it appeared the united states and china had worked constructively, intensely, to try to resolve this. go ahead. >> p.j., it sounds like someone is doubling back on the original agreement and/or the terms were not fully understood. chen guangcheng saying he felt he wife was going to be beaten to death if he didn't leave the u.s. embassy. it sounds like he at one point said that the u.s. had not -- was not pro active enough. that certainly doesn't look good. >> well, understand that mr. chen was trying to do something that was unique without precedent. normally the united states tries to work to bring activists out of china where they feel they are threatened. mr. chen specifically had the united states negotiate with
. as the president said, preventing a nuclear iran is in the interest of the united states. we have issued reports, and the most recent one was issued on and.ary 1 and it includes a distinguished panel of four democratic members of congress, admirals' and generals and also experts to area our last report supported the view that the best approached to this challenge is a simultaneous pursuit of a triple track policy, which is of diplomacy, tough sanctions, and a credible and invisible military threat. we also issued a white paper on each of those tracks. i want to highlight one recommendation on each of those tracks, and then i will change it over to mort zuckerman. and the military threat we believe the united states should boost the credibility of its military to air around us nuclear facilities, and we have spelled out how to do so. one element has been selling bunker busters' to israel. we do not advocate an israeli strike, but this will send a strong signal to tehran to negotiate in good faith, encourage other states that the alternative to supporting u.s. sanctions could be military conflict
a bigger problem within diplomacy. but the united states has been willing to use both force and diplomacy to really try to solve the problem. i think in the case of north korea, that that -- it's just not registered like that. that is not specific to any administration. we have had crises with north korea and every administration has made the same calculation. when we reach a crisis with north korea, are we willing to go all-out to the end to solve this thing, or do we want a solution that will park it momentarily, put him diplomatic tracks, present and kevin and want move on to the other issues that most concern us, whether it is the domestic and economic situation or iraq or afghanistan or syria or the middle east peace process. these tend to be the more it important issues in u.s. foreign policy. >> the other issue that makes iraq different is the u.s. korea alliance. have you see the dynamics of the alliance playing into our ability to adjust the top concerns that the u.s. has related to north korea's nuclear program? >> undeniably, and when we look at the situation, south korea is mo
. and in relation to the united states government, whether it is the clinton administration or bush administration or obama administration, they're probably better understood stood more like francement they're sometime as lined with the united states, sometimes o posed. postly they are just trying to stay out of the way and do their own thing. >> ann bremmer and steve coll when we continue. funding for charlie rose was provided by the following: . >> rose: additional funding provided by these funders:. >> and by bloomberg:. >> from studios in new york city captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: ian bremmer is here president of eurasia group, his new book every nation for itself, winners and losers in a g-zero world t paints a picture in a world in which no single power is able to take be the responsibility of global leadership. larry summers says everyone who cares about our collective future will need to carefully consider this book's impressive arguments. i'm pleased to have ian bremmer back at this table, welcome. >> hi, cha
geopolitics -- host: oil and gas production in the western hemisphere is booming, with the united states emerging less dependent on supplies from an unstable middle east. vens, nigeria, and mexico. host: southeast michigan. what are gas prices like there, dave? caller: very good. someone saying on your show that prices were falling for the holidays. that's not true here in southeast michigan, which people here like to drive a lot up north. we have a wonderful, beautiful up north. but the prices here average in the low $3.90's. they were a week ago in the mid $3.60, around there. for my employees, it's all the same for them. we're traveling 60 mile an hour round trips and that really hits the pocketbook when you're having to travel every day for week. i'll companies are certainly quick to bring the price down. thanks and have a good holiday. host: it's not our oil that we're talking about, it belongs to oil companies. new hampshire, john on our democrats line joins us. hi. caller: just one note i've acknowledged over the last few weeks. we have a caller on your show, but he was discussing
disruptive not only in a conflict can be destructive to the united states but other countries as well and that is one of the things about military operations in cyberspace with cascading effect that are hard to predict. we have concerns about this and this is why we created joint military platforms like a strategic security dialogue to talk about issues that we feel our potential for friction in the u.s./china relationship. cyber is one of those areas. we don't talk about space, nuclear and missile defense areas as part of the strategic dialogue. >> you mentioned last year spending was almost double what the public acknowledgment was. what things will you give us as examples that they are spending on this year? you did not speculate on the number but what they are spending on this year but not publicly acknowledged? >> we think their nuclear force modernization occurs and research and development money that goes through their defense industry we also think is from a different budget, a different account. some foreign acquisitions come from a different account as well and some local co
billion that would be royalties that would be paid to the isa as "pos opposed to the united states and of course go to the organization in kingston, jamaica for redistribution to the developing world. and this is the first time in history that an international organization, the u.n. in this case, would possess taxing authority over this country. now, i've heard the veto argument. discussed by one of the other members here. i think the secretary ritsch. it's really not too important to discuss that, because there are two entities that would make that determination. you have the council, the 36th-member council, the assembly, to make these decisions, but the point is, under article 160, it's going to cost us. well, let's see. yeah. under article 82, payments and contributions shall be made annually rp to all production at a site after this period's time. what we're saying, it's going to be paid regardless of where you think it should go or where you think it is going to go. the second thing i want to kov herb is the environmental and, we in this, for the ten years now have rejected i
the united states, have observed for centuries. given that we haven't, to date, had any major disruptions at sea, can you respond to that and talk about why it's -- why the sense now is that it's imperative to ratify the treaty? >> i can. the customary international law evolves and i can give you an example of something on the land domain in a moment. but it evolves. and it is subject to individual interpretations. so, threading this back to my earlier answer. the rise of new nations competing for resources, brazil, russia, india, china, the list goes on and on. their rise puts us in a position where unless we have this convention with which to form a basis to have the conversation about resources of the sort you're talking about, does cause us to be increasingly at risk to instability. and that's my job, instability. the secretary can speak eloquently about the economic h i issues, but i'm speaking to the security issues. so that is what has changed. and i'll give you the example of the land domain that i mentioned. we are party to the geneva convention. there were plenty of customary i
is the united states didn't have much competition in those days we won the war and japan and europe were not major competitors. but even today germany, other countries like germany, they have a social compact very similar to the one we had. and that means german workers are enjoying the benefits of productivity increases, unemployment is relatively low, and their standard of living is very high, and the very rich take home a much smaller share of the total gains from growth than they do in the united states. >> professor i want to focus on that last issue, because you are exactly correct. you know i agree with you, any importance of unions and the social account that we all believe will help the entirety of our population central to what we should be doing. let's talk about trade in particular, because we have entered a series of multi-lateral and by bilateral trade agreements how can workers compete against labor in the number you hear is 2 to 3 billion additional workers competes against our domestic work force. so that general motors and ford are now invest
. china sits right on the border with north korea. the last thing the united states or china wants is some sort of confrontation or a configuration of the peninsula that would cause the two to butt heads as they did in 1953, and so i think any time there is serious thought given to some sort of military action, this is constantly at the top -- not even the top, but half way up the ladder, this is a concern that every u.s. president, i think, has had to think about seriously. i think that's certainly one of the reasons, the china factor, and the other is that we, united states went into iraq or afghanistan because it became thee top foreign policy issue on which the administration saw a revolution, a final resolution. now, we can debate whether that was the right or wrong thing. many americans think it was the wrong thing. many americans think that nothing was resolved there, and, you know, that's a completely different question. i mean i think the point for korea is that i don't really think that the north korea issue has risen to that level of priority for an administration. it's been a c
the veto word is not used, also not used in the constitution of the united states but no one doubts the president has it. we have the ability to do it to the language that is there. that will become a bit more clear as we come forward. >> thank you, chairman kerry. i'm very glad that we're having this in today and i appreciate all of you for being here. senator webb and i sent chairman kerry and ranking member luber a letter back in april urging we move forward to consideration of law of the sea treaty and i'm grateful to your broad and searching and supportive testimony here today. when i was brand-new to the senate, one of the earlier meetings i took was with the then outgoing chief of naval operations. when i asked him what is the single most important thing we can do to help the navy over the next decade, he said without hesitation, ratify the law of the sea treaty. i was taken aback by the. given other budget priorities, operational issues, as it turned out admiral estimation of the importance of this issue is shared i'm stomach every living chief of naval operations not to men
playing days. >>> we're in danger. the words of chen guangcheng now begging the united states to allow his family to board hillary clinton's plane to america. >>> would you pay $1,500 for a piece of stale cake? "cnn newsroom" starts right now. we do begin this hour with breaking news. with a rare and startling look inside the mind of osama bin laden. right now the public is getting its first look at documents seized in the raid that killed the al qaeda mastermind. they are in his own words. and they capture a fading leader desperate to launch another catastrophic strike on the united states. hundreds and hundreds of pages are now appearing on the website of combatting terrorism center at west point. peter bergen is our national security expert and was given early access to this so-called treasure-trove of material. what's been your biggest take away? >> i was able to review some of the documents that are being released today in the course of reporting a book i have written on the hunt for bin laden. the take aways clearly don't have operational information that would be useful to the cia a
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 1,900 (some duplicates have been removed)